this is not a ghost , except that it is a ghost of an image of possibly somebody not actually there in person when the photograph was taken. It could therefore be a photoshop fraud. Or, it could be an echo of somebody who left an impression in that place at a time prior to the photograph being taken and developed. (this makes me wonder if it still happens with digital cameras or if it is something to do with the chemical process of developing images from negatives into positives on paper containing silver, but thats another issue).
Whatever this is, it isn the soul of a departed person.
Somebody commented in another blog on this topic that they agreed that ghosts exist but only as an echo, an imprint, a finger print to use metaphors in order to explain the unexplainable. I agree with this.
The soul is something very diferent, in my opinion / belief. The soul has no fixed shape, no face, no body. It is something ethereal. Godlike. Maybe even a portion of that thing that people might call god, for surely if we agree there is a god then we must also agree that said god has no physical form.
Where it exists in the human vehicle is unknown and is not neccessarily in the brain. As the spark that animates this bag of water is comprised of nothing physical it can reside anywhere, and nowhere. It is not to do with intelligence, for surely that lies within the brain. It is, surely, something not quite emotional and not quite intellectual and not quite pure energy. It leaves the body upon death of the body and has been seen, by an old mate of mine actually, as a silver cord. This is of course contained within the Spiritualist edicts and he is a spiritualist so he could have persuaded himself to see it when it didnt actually exist. Whatever.
The Thought Police come in here. For spiritualists the police say that the silver cord exists. Apparently Christians dont believe in a soul at all, according to somebody in my ken, which was news to me. The Thought Police definitely exist though. I have evidence of them on facebook. I know a man who likes to wear skirts, but also likes to be naked (and no, Im not talking of myself even though I could be) and he likes to post naked pics of himself. FB of course, get complaints and force him to remove them. He has now taken to uploading pics of himself naked but with his penis not showing, because this is all fb is actually concerned with, willies and ladies nipples………..you can torture an animal, kill an endangered species creature, show pics of beheadings and thats ok, just as long as you dont show dicks and nipps. Also, I discovered, one cannot say things like “there is still not a DONT LIKE button”, which I said in response to a posting of an artistic image on my newsfeed that I really didnt like. This, apparently, is negative and should never be said. I can now click on LIKE, HAPPY, ANGRY, etc, and they are all ok………although I would argue that angry is more negative than DONT LIKE. If I dont like something why should I not say so? it doesnt mean it isnt good, it just means I dont like it, but apparently we are not permitted to have opinions anymore and as all who know me know, or at least accuse me of is, Im opinionated. With regard to the nudist, like he says, his status only goes to friends and fb friends (which are diferent animals, by the way) so why do they complain when they can simply unfriend him. That makes complete sense, but the Thought Police wont do that as they like to complain………..which is surely a negative thing to do. And so we go full circle.
Except the person who inspired the main part of this blog has ended their very long , and nicely illustrated blog, with the admission that actually, after long genuflection, they might agree now that I could be right.
And on that bombshell I will just say…………………
Love all, hurt none and walk in soft shoes